Idk know what editor you’re using, but it worked perfectly fine out of the box with IntelliJ. Nothing compared to the hassle of setting up a proper Eslint setup for typescript, honestly.

And I’m not trying to defend python here, I don’t touch that language except under duress, and I do prefer C-style code blocks as well. But this is kind of a pointless argument.

I don’t have any experience with Mega/Mattel stuff so far, so can’t really compare those. From what I hear, the quality of pieces is okay, but not on the same level as Lego and gobricks (the manufacturer that provides the bricks for both Lumibricks and Pantasy, among others).

If you actually want to give them a shot, just make sure you get relatively recent-ish sets (released within the last 2 years or so), as especially Lumibricks has very rapidly been refining the quality of their set designs, instructions etc, and gobricks pieces from before that time also tend to have quite strong clutch power which they’ve softened up by now. It’s really cool to see how quickly things are improving at the high end currently

My recommendation is Lumibricks or Pantasy. They’re not quite 1/3 of the price of Lego, more around 1/2 on average I think, but both offer the best brick quality that you’re going to get from any company at the moment (they use the same supplier, gobricks). They’re also both offering exclusively original designs, so no copied sets or anything like that, and doing a lot of stuff setting them apart from Lego. Lumibricks has light kits integrated seamlessly into every set and goes hard on printed pieces, no stickers anywhere. Pantasy likes using lots of metallic painted pieces, bigger custom molded pieces, and has a few interesting IPs.

If you’re into Technic, there’s also CaDa, and if you want very accurate display models you could look into Cobi. The later is a polish company that designs and produces entirely in Europe, in contrast to any other brand out there, but that also comes with a price tag that’s pretty similar to Lego at this point.

Bluebrixx is definitely around that 1/3 of lego prices. They are hit or miss though when it comes to quality as they use different brick suppliers for different sets, and it’s not always easy to know what you’re getting beforehand.

When have you last tried? The competition has changed immensely during the last couple of years, and there are brands now that have it dialed in just as well as Lego. I highly recommend checking out Lumibricks or Pantasy, those are best in class at the moment, and actually better than Lego in many ways, imo. Or maybe Cada, if you’re more into the Technic side of things

Oh yeah, agreed. I was just irked by the wording a bit

Thinking about work is not the same as working

I mean that depends entirely on what your work is and what you mean by “thinking”. As a designer/developer, just letting thoughts come and go without forcing it during off times is absolutely productive work that gives me a head start the next time I’m back at work “properly” again.

And as a CEO/business owner your job is making decisions for the most part, and thinking about those decisions should better be a big part of that

Unfortunately not. You do get a warning that it’s an unchecked cast at least.

Granted, the issue here is generic type erasure, which was a tradeoff that was decided on for backwards compatibility when generics were first introduced to Java, so it’s not like an actually desirable feature of the language. But the point is that this wouldn’t be reason for anyone to not call Java and Kotlin not statically typed, their type system is just a bit weaker than others in certain aspects

I get your point, but that’s not a great example. Kotlin is a statically typed language, and this compiles (and runs!) just fine:

val test: List<String> = listOf(1) as List<String>
println(test) // prints "[1]"

Even val test: String = 1 as String will compile, but at least gives you an exception at runtime, which the equivalent typescript wouldn’t.

There are tools that can change the colors of your screen to simulate different kinds of color blindness, that makes it pretty easy to test for the basics. I’ve been using this one in the past: https://colororacle.org/

But in general, it’s also just a good guideline to never rely only on color to communicate important information, and always also have a graphical or textual cue to go with the color.

Huh? I’m streaming from my Jellyfin just fine when I’m on the go, with no tailscale or other VPN set up

Why not simply say donation

It’s about setting expectations. The wording is chosen because they believe that paying open source developers for their work should be the norm, not the exception. Calling it a donation would not do that justice. Their wording is saying “Here’s the software, we’ll trust you to pay us for it if it brings you value and you can afford it”. It’s an explicit expectation to pay, unless you have good reasons not to, which is also fine but should be the exception. Whereas a donation is very much optional and not the default expectation by nature.

In the end it’s just a semantic difference, it’s just all about making expectations clear even if there is no enforcement around them.

The original Steam controller worked without Steam running, even including some of the extra features like mouse and scrolling functions for the trackpads if you wanted it to. So here’s hoping

One country cozying up to Putin is hardly a reason to call the entire EU divided

I’m German, and I’ve never heard that before. I’d be seriously weirded out by someone saying that or teaching it to their kids

I’m German, and I would not want that. German grammar works differently in a way that makes programming a lot more awkward for some reason. Things like, “.forEach” would technically need three different spellings depending on the grammatical gender of the type of element that’s in the collection it’s called on. Of course you could just go with neuter and say it refers to the “items” in the collection, but that’s just one of lots of small pieces of awkwardness that get stacked on top of each other when you try to translate languages and APIs. I really appreciate how much more straightforward that works with English.

the argument that “being selfless is selfish” is not useful

Yes, that’s my entire point.

and provably false

Depends on how you define “selfish”. Again, that’s exactly what I’m trying to demonstrate here. Reducing the definition of selfish to mean “getting something out of it” makes it meaningless because every decision is made in the hopes of getting something out of it in some way, even if it’s obscure. To make it useful, you need to look at what someone is getting out of it in order to get to a useful definition.

That would be an extremely reductive definition that doesn’t really tell us much about how caring for others is actually experienced and how it manifests in the world.

Exactly, that’s my point.

How would this for example explain sacrificing yourself to save another person, if the very core of caring is to create positive emotions in yourself?

In this case it would be about reducing negative emotions, choosing the lesser of two evils. Losing a loved one and/or having to live with the knowledge that you could have saved them but chose not to can inflict massive emotional pain, potentially for the rest of your life. Dying yourself instead might seem outright attractive in comparison.

this idea that caring is in its essence transactional

That’s not actually how I’m seeing it, and I also don’t think it’s a super profound insight or something. It’s just a super technical way of viewing the topic of motivation, and while it’s an interesting thought experiment, it’s mostly useless.

Well, but what does “caring” mean? It means that their well-being affects your emotions. At its very core, you wanting to help people you care about comes from wanting to create positive emotions in yourself or avoiding negative ones (possibly in the future, it doesn’t have to be an immediate effect). If those emotions weren’t there, you wouldn’t actually care and thus not do it.

Edit to clarify: I’m not being cynical or pessimistic here, or implying that this means that everyone is egotistical because of this. The point I was trying to make is that defining egotism vs. Altruism is a little bit more complex than just looking at whether there’s something in it for the acting person. We actually need to look at what’s in it for the acting person.

I mean, you’re not wrong, but your point is also kinda meaningless. Of course, you only ever do things because there’s something in it for you, even if that something is just feeling good about yourself. If there was truly nothing in it for you, then why would you do it?

But that misses the point of the “people are inherently selfish” vs “people are inherently generous” discussion, because it’s not actually about whether people do things only for themselves at the most literal level, instead it’s about whether people inherently get something out of doing things for others without external motivation. So your point works the same on both sides of the argument.